Concerns about Ron Paul's foreign policy position and how to convince more voters to join the Ron Paul camp. by Fearless Citizen
(libertarian)
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
This campaign seems to be moving along nicely for Ron Paul. His fundraising is really good this early on and we should see some excitement once the 1st quarter FEC report is released. Overall, it is an optimistic time for smaller, constitutional government, and a move towards maximized liberty. More and more we hear the other GOP candidates saying the same things that Ron Paul has been saying for years and it is amazing to see this happening. I still don't trust the other candidates to carry out most of what they say, but at least it is a reflection of how the nation is changing to a different philosophy.
However, he is polling nationally from 5 to 10% and as a Ron Paul supporter, I still see something that is holding back voters from giving their vote to Ron Paul. The problem is the difficulty in convincing enough voters that he is correct on foreign policy. There doesn't seem to be a well understood plan from Dr. Paul about what would happen after all of the troops come home nor what could happen in the rest of the world after doing so.
So, based on this situation, I would pose some questions to Dr. Paul:
Why do many Americans fail to make the link between the hatred towards us and the occupation of foreign nations? How can the message be improved?
Assuming you are elected President and give the order to bring home the troops from the Middle East, what plans would you carry out to protect the troops as they exit?
What could be done to deter other nations from being aggressive towards us if we remove troops from around the world, such as the North Koreans?
When the troops arrive home, what will they do? If they are not needed for defense how can they be integrated into society when the job situation is so dismal.
What plans would you make to assure Americans that we will not be attacked by any terrorist organizations without a foreign presence?
What level of an intelligence apparatus would we need to maintain to be able to know when terrorist attacks are coming?
What kind of diplomacy can be used to convince Muslim nations to control terrorist activities after we have left?
What will be the net affect to the federal budget if all the troops come home and a new national defense plan is put in place?
I'm sure there are many other intelligent questions out there, but the point is that the voters NEED to understand that they will be safer by bringing home the troops, and they NEED to understand the reasoning behind it. We NEED to see a comprehensive plan that makes sense and provides a comfortable level of security for all citizens.
I just don't believe that the "one-liner" comments being made by Dr. Paul during television debates and media interviews are effective enough to convince voters. It would be my desire to see a comprehensive plan rolled out to the mainstream media outlets that will convince more voters to come into the Ron Paul camp. I believe it is something that can be accomplished, and for the sake of all American citizens, it MUST be accomplished. This plan must be delivered directly by Ron Paul for it to be effective. A special video press release would be an effective vehicle that could easily be spread to the masses.
I wrote an article back in early 2008 (ARTICLE) during the previous campaign regarding foreign policy, but it felt like I was preaching to the choir (other Ron Paul supporters) and at the same time, the message was falling on deaf ears (Ron Paul non-supporters). The non-supporters were just not interested in looking at a different way to handle foreign policy nor did many even understand it. In the 2008 article I explain what I feel is the problem with many voters...it's FEAR. I still believe most of the original article is correct and would invite you to go back and read it as reference.
In conclusion, I believe Ron Paul can only win if he dispels the FEAR that most citizens have about the world around them. This can only be done with a convincing plan that will keep citizens secure.
I would invite you to make any comments either in the comment section or by email at fearlesscitizen-nc@gmail.com. Please keep it real and civil if you do decide to comment.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 12
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Fearless Citizen only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Fearless Citizen is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I'll give you the answers I would like to hear coming out of a politician's mouth:
Why do many Americans fail to make the link between the hatred towards us and the occupation of foreign nations? How can the message be improved?
First, there is no connection. We were hated when we weren't occupying foreign nations, we are hated now that we are. The "hatred" of the US is independent of our foreign policy, and is, in fact, a far more fundamental factor: we are perceived [with reason] to be the most powerful nation. International Relations is based in no small part upon the premise of the childhood game "king of the mountain". The one on top is the target of most or all of those below. That targetting is seen as "hatred" by many, when it's really nothing more complicated than garden variety ambition and envy. They want to replace us.
Second, to "improve" the message would be to lie. Frankly, I'm tired of that. I would find it refreshing for a politician to divest himself of the practice.
Assuming you are elected President and give the order to bring home the troops from the Middle East, what plans would you carry out to protect the troops as they exit?
Rear-guard marching backwards with weapons drawn. Shoot anyone who makes a threatening move.
What could be done to deter other nations from being aggressive towards us if we remove troops from around the world, such as the North Koreans?
Same thing we should have been doing the whole time: you mess with us, threaten us in any way, we will come kick your ***. We won't stay around forever in any juvenile "let's now be friends" routine where we spend our money rebuilding you after you threatened us; you rebuild yourselves. And if you don't want us to come into your country, break things and kill people, then you leave us the *** alone.
Not debatable.
When the troops arrive home, what will they do? If they are not needed for defense how can they be integrated into society when the job situation is so dismal.
Eliminate 90% of the regulatory authority of the Administrative Branch to pester and annoy people doing what they do best; think and act in their own economic interests.
What plans would you make to assure Americans that we will not be attacked by any terrorist organizations without a foreign presence?
"Terrorism" is nothing more than the age-old manifestation of non-state militias attempting to exert state-style power and influence. Modern technological armies require that non-state militias rely on state sponsorship to be adequately armed. Despite "certain political mindsets" denying this, and others denying that we know who those state-sponsors are, ... we know who the state sponsors are. State-sponsors are effectively using terrorism as a proxy war-fighting brigade so they won't have to get their own hands dirty.
We get attacked? see the answer above about kicking their *** and leaving them with the mess to clean up.
What level of an intelligence apparatus would we need to maintain to be able to know when terrorist attacks are coming?
HumInt is necessary. Hire scum and sleazeballs to do our snooping.
Three-fourths of the world is ruled by tyrants. Tyrants de facto and de jure, both. They're going to be tyrants whether we're their friends or not. And if we stick our nose in the air and refuse to deal with someone because he's a tyrant, the only thing we get is a great big blind spot. We gotta deal with tyrants, period. Ain't our job to change their nature. But they have information that is helpful to us.
What kind of diplomacy can be used to convince Muslim nations to control terrorist activities after we have left?
See above: you sponsor terrorism and it affects us, we come kick your *** and let you pick up the pieces.
What will be the net affect to the federal budget if all the troops come home and a new national defense plan is put in place?
The worst thing that happened to us, militarily, in the past generation was the "peace dividend". We riffed our armed forces to ribbons, got stuck with a fixed-size force beholden to UN staffing levels babysitting Hussein ... which affected our ability to prosecute A'stan effecively: too many of our troops were required to sit in Saudi and Kuwaiti desert with their thumbs up their butts because France, Russia and China - UN veto-holders - prefered to see our military forces hamstrung.
